The Wolverine looks beautifully formidable. Looks of marvelous work.
There are no defects in physics. A defect is an "undesireable" outcome based upon a set of physical properties. Objects, like amplifiers, behave as "presentations" for better or worse, that interact in the combination with other objects, for better or worse, to produce some outcome. If these objects interact in the combination sonically in a positive way, that can be stated as defining synergy. How does this not make sense to you?
Nonsense. People who listen are also doing so because they enjoy and appreciate music, releasing whatever dopamine or serotonins that you suggest being more-so in you because you "care more" about the system playing it. My enjoyment hasn't changed much in my lifetime, notwithstanding that my system back then was more or less rubbish by todays standards.
And if you modify a piece of equipment for improved performance, (and do it badly), it does sound worse. Period. This too doesn't convey much depth of incite.
There are no defects in physics. A defect is an "undesireable" outcome based upon a set of physical properties. Objects, like amplifiers, behave as "presentations" for better or worse, that interact in the combination with other objects, for better or worse, to produce some outcome. If these objects interact in the combination sonically in a positive way, that can be stated as defining synergy. How does this not make sense to you?
What I was trying to convey is that just because some people enjoy equipment with very audible impairments doesn't have anything to do with getting it done right. Yes, listening to music is enjoyable - or why do it? What has been proved beyond doubt is that over the long term, people prefer equipment with lower distortion and flat frequency response. Period. In the short term, people can gravitate towards just different, and they always search without finding good. This is how the current audio industry makes money.
I had a decent system in 1980. I had a pretty poor system in 1972 and it got better. Today my systems are far better and I appreciated the improvements without changing my tastes. My taste and what I like hasn't changed, my systems have improved to better fit those desires. I could listen to my first system out of nostalgia, but I wouldn't set it up to listen more than that.
Defect in performance as in impairment. Non-ideal output from an input stimulus. If you reduce impairments, the system sounds better. It really is that simple. Now if you want to put an effects unit in there, cool. Do not call it accurate, and the term "musical" is often used instead of "excessive distortion". If a system only sounds good on a quartet and not so good sith a symphony, the system isn't very good and measurements will bear that out. A good system plays whatever music (or noise/sound) accurately no matter what it is.
Now as I tried to say. Because someone loves their cellphone doesn't mean it is as good as a top performing system. It means the person who likes the cell phone doesn't care beyond that. Sorry, but true. Therefore in the context of improving sound quality, and performance, they do not relate at all. They don't care, but more people do.
Anyway, performance can be easily measured well below the human body's ability to perceive. If you want o argue what goes on between someone's ears, that is a totally different discussion that is pointless to engage in. Measured performance (done correctly) does agree with subjective opinion that is unbiased. Selecting individual cases as examples merely muddies the waters, not going there. In fact, biases and suggestion affect subjective opinion far more than the actual listening experience.
I had a decent system in 1980. I had a pretty poor system in 1972 and it got better. Today my systems are far better and I appreciated the improvements without changing my tastes. My taste and what I like hasn't changed, my systems have improved to better fit those desires. I could listen to my first system out of nostalgia, but I wouldn't set it up to listen more than that.
Defect in performance as in impairment. Non-ideal output from an input stimulus. If you reduce impairments, the system sounds better. It really is that simple. Now if you want to put an effects unit in there, cool. Do not call it accurate, and the term "musical" is often used instead of "excessive distortion". If a system only sounds good on a quartet and not so good sith a symphony, the system isn't very good and measurements will bear that out. A good system plays whatever music (or noise/sound) accurately no matter what it is.
Now as I tried to say. Because someone loves their cellphone doesn't mean it is as good as a top performing system. It means the person who likes the cell phone doesn't care beyond that. Sorry, but true. Therefore in the context of improving sound quality, and performance, they do not relate at all. They don't care, but more people do.
Anyway, performance can be easily measured well below the human body's ability to perceive. If you want o argue what goes on between someone's ears, that is a totally different discussion that is pointless to engage in. Measured performance (done correctly) does agree with subjective opinion that is unbiased. Selecting individual cases as examples merely muddies the waters, not going there. In fact, biases and suggestion affect subjective opinion far more than the actual listening experience.
Do you happen to know where? A search on this forum leads to lots of build threads, threads about selling second-hand Wolverines and a thread that starts with a schematic, but the name on the schematic isn't Wolverine but something else.
I don't remember exactly and I didn't bookmark it.
However I did manage to find it in less than 15 minutes just using the Forum search, hunting for threads with Wolverine in the title, then exploring the ones which looked promising. I sort of half-remember that a couple of Group Buy threads for Wolverine, contained early posts with important clues, useful links, or both.
However I did manage to find it in less than 15 minutes just using the Forum search, hunting for threads with Wolverine in the title, then exploring the ones which looked promising. I sort of half-remember that a couple of Group Buy threads for Wolverine, contained early posts with important clues, useful links, or both.
Or a simply Blameless design from Douglas Self. As the largest contributor to the distortion is the output stage. Anything before that is not that matter. EF3 OPT would perform similarly to other EF3. Adding TMC to the Blameless, you got -90dB thd cross the spectrum and power band.
Hi jxdking,
Not entirely true. How well the voltage amplifier can correct is also very important, as is the linearity of the input stage. The actual diff pair is absolutely critical. You do want to reduce distortion everywhere within reason.
Not entirely true. How well the voltage amplifier can correct is also very important, as is the linearity of the input stage. The actual diff pair is absolutely critical. You do want to reduce distortion everywhere within reason.
The output stage might be the largest contributor to distortion. But a differential input stage must do an accurate subtraction between the two input signals in order to get the reduction in distortion that the feedback promises you. The common mode signal doesn’t necessarily need to cancel, but common mode DISTORTION does - and the only way to do that is with a matched pair. Failure to do so will result in distortion being reduced by LESS than the amount of feedback - ie, 40 dB of feedback and 34 dB reduction in distortion. Of course it helps, but not as much as it COULD.
A well executed singleton will often outperform a random differential pair, for this reason. Especially so if there is no attempt at enforcing quiescent current balance. I’ve seen designs with 2:1 differences in current - and those don’t sound good at all.
A well executed singleton will often outperform a random differential pair, for this reason. Especially so if there is no attempt at enforcing quiescent current balance. I’ve seen designs with 2:1 differences in current - and those don’t sound good at all.